S NARAYANA Vs. MD AHMEDULLA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is challenging the impugned order dt.2.6.03 passed by the Industrial Court in exercise of power under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1997 by which the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected. The revision application was preferred against the order of the Labour Court interalia holding that the complaint under item no.1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act is partly allowed. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly stated as under:

(2.) The respondent was in employment of the petitioner and on 5.4.97 he tendered his resignation from services. On 5.4.97 it seems that the petitioner had settled the accounts of the petitioner and paid his dues. On 20.5.97 the Union addressed a letter to the petitioner company interalia contending that the resignation was given under an impression that the company is likely to close down the factory and if it restarts the factory, all the workmen will be taken back in employment as fresh employees. It has been stated that the factory has been restarted after 10/15 days and the respondent workmen has not been absorbed. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to re-employ the respondent workmen. In respect to the said letter on 4.6.97 the petitioner replied and pointed out that there is no such arrangement arrived at between the parties while tendering the resignation by the respondent. Ultimately, the respondent workman filed a complaint. The complaint is filed under item 1 (a), (b) (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. It has been interalia contended that the petitioner is entitled to equal amount of retrenchment compensation as has been paid in respect of other workmen by treating him in employment. In para V of the said complaint it has been also contended that the respondent services were terminated on 5.4.97 and that the resignation has been obtained by force by obtaining signature on the number of balance papers. It has been contended that the respondent is an illiterate person and since he bonafidely believed that the respondents are permanently and irrevocably closing their factory, he signed on the said blank papers.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid that the matter was heard before the lower courts. Both the parties have lead the evidence. On perusal of evidence which has been produced before me by respondent workman, in my opinion, there is no evidence whatsoever led to show how and in what manner the said resignation is obtained before misrepresentation and coercion. Except repeating the pleadings in para V of the complaint in his examination in chief, he has given no evidence whatsoever either documentary or details of such allegations.